Obama gun grab, Carbon Pokers Tina Wallman, Rodney Alcala top google trends.

[beevul]

The top Google trends on January 27, 2011 are dominated by those searching for information on the Obama gun grab, Carbon Poker's spokesmodel Tina Wallman and the prosecution of the 'Dating Game' killer, Rodney Alcala.

Obama Gun Grabbing: Gun control was assumed to be a part of President Obama's State of the Union Address on Tuesday. However, he did not mention much more than a reference to wounded Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. His administration is now promising that he will address this issue shortly, with a new gun control effort unveiled by the White House.

Obama's adviser, David Plouffe, tells NBC News, “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill."

http://www.examiner.com/google-trends-in-national/obama-gun-grab-carbon-poker-s-tina-wallman-rodney-alcala-top-google-trends?cid=parsely#parsely

Interesting.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Finally, after all these years

it's coming to a conclusion.'

I haven't slept since he was elected.

[pipoman]

11. Yea, it'll come to a conclusion alright in 2012..

hope he doesn't look confused and suggest he wasn't warned..

[Cheap_Trick]

2. Yes, now he will come to your house and take your guns!

:sarcasm:

[benEzra]

3. He won't, but McCarthy/Feinstein surely want to...

and McCarthy has introduced a bill to ultimately confiscate perhaps a quarter-billion magazines from ~40 million people.

Outlawing standard factory magazines for the most popular civilian guns in the United States would be monumentally foolish from a political standpoint.

[HankyDubs]

4. misinformed fear-mongering

But what did we really expect? The gun crowd ALWAYS relies on misinformation and fear to promote its agenda.

The McCarthy bill does not propose to confiscate a single magazine from a single person.

[beevul]

5. Factually incorrect.

It makes magazines untransferable.

That means when someone passes away they must be destroyed, or turned in.

Defacto confiscation, is confiscation.

"The McCarthy bill does not propose to confiscate a single magazine from a single person."

Isn't that just cute by half - that carefully worded bit of misleading misdirection.

If you have to turn it in when you're done with it, its being confiscated, even if not in the most direct or immediate sense of the word.

One might even go so far as to say, that a proposal to do so, and the characterization of it the way you have, is dishonest.

They do after all go hand in hand.

[HankyDubs]

6. pot meet kettle

You titled this thread "Obama gun grab....blablabla."

Then this other poster here ranted about confiscating 30 zillion magazines from 20 zillion people.

And I'm the "cute" one because I corrected these deliberate distortions and lies and presented the truth?

The bill doesn't confiscate any magazines. That's a fact. There is no way around that. No gun grab. You are here engaging in deliberate fearmongering and using misinformation tactics, and you're upset because I presented the truth.

[beevul]

8. Factually incorrect again, and this time in multiples.

"You titled this thread "Obama gun grab....blablabla."

Its not my title, its the title of the article, which you clearly either did not read, or are being deliberately dishonest about. If the truth were otherwise, you wouldn't have said what you did.

"The bill doesn't confiscate any magazines. That's a fact. There is no way around that. No gun grab. You are here engaging in deliberate fearmongering and using misinformation tactics, and you're upset because I presented the truth."

The bill in question, REQUIRES that magazines are non-transferable. That means when an individual is finished using them, either because they no longer wish to
own them, or have died, that magazines MUST be turned in, or destroyed.

What word do YOU use to describe the act of requiring something to be either destroyed or turned in?

Thats defacto-confiscation. Defacto-confiscation IS confiscation - its just that its "time-release confiscation".

"And I'm the "cute" one because I corrected these deliberate distortions and lies and presented the truth?"

No, you're the cute one because you state these deliberate factual inaccuracies and distortions, and present them AS truth.

[HankyDubs]

9. you chose the title of this thread

And you chose to use that title for a reason, to spark as much hysteria as possible. Your intent was perfectly clear.

"What word do YOU use to describe the act of requiring something to be either destroyed or turned in?"

I wouldn't use the term "confiscation" just so I could conjure up the image of POTUS Obama and his "jackbooted ATF thugs" coming to your house, knocking the door down and confiscating your precious precious precious guns.

If the individual is dead, she doesn't need the magazine (no one needs these magazines when they are alive either, btw). If she doesn't want it anymore, then she doesn't need to sell it. Forbidding the sale or transfer of the item is not confiscation. That's just a fact.

There isn't anything inaccurate about what I said. There IS something inaccurate about the terms "obama gun grab" and "confiscating 40 bazillion magazines."

Edit: multiple typoes.

[beevul]

10. I used the title of the piece.

I used the title of the piece. Thats common practice at DU, and anyone thats been around at DU for any length of time knows it. How odd that you don't.

"Obama gun grab, Carbon Pokers Tina Wallman, Rodney Alcala top google trends."

Maybe read the entire title, or even just some of it, before you try to make it seem as if it says something it doesn't, next time. If you don't like the title, take it up with the people that actually wrote the piece you didn't bother to read. You have no business ascribing to me, intent that I have not demonstrated in any way.


"I'd call it "requiring something to be destroyed or turned in because transfer is illegal."

In the real world, people call that defacto-confiscation, regardless of what you call it in your little world.

"I wouldn't use the term "confiscation"

Of course you wouldn't, it would be too accurate.

You forgot that the bill places the burden on OWNERS to prove they owned the magazine before the bill was enacted.

If they can't? Guess what...felony. I'm sure you approve of such things.

Nevermind that about 1 in maybe a thousand people keep receipts for such common inexpensive replacable things. Why would they?

[HankyDubs]

14. no matter

how many times you repeat falsehoods, it doesn't make them true.

no matter how many times you say "the real world," the facts contradict you.

The law says that making it illegal to transfer or sell an item does not amount to confiscation of that item.

[pipoman]

12. So then you wouldn't object to a law

which would make transfer of your car unlawful? When you are done with it you don't need it. If you die you don't need it. Fuck your heirs and too bad that you are out your money. How about that?

[HankyDubs]

15. cars are not like guns

I've been over this and over this with "you people." These car-gun analogies are bogus and no argument based on these analogies holds water.

[Straw Man]

17. Property is property.

That's the purpose of this analogy. Car, home, jewelry, real estate, guns, whatever.

And confiscation is confiscation. What else would you call it when the government seizes property upon the owner's death? "Inheritance preemption"? Someone has to hand it in, or someone has to go and get it. It doesn't vaporize. It doesn't go into the casket with the deceased. It ceases to become private property and becomes government property. That's confiscation.

[HankyDubs]

18. the law says you're wrong

sorry.

Confiscation: To expropriate private property for public use without compensating the owner under the authority of the Police Power of the government.

Prohibiting the sale or transfer of particular items is not the same as seizing that item. Telling person A that they may not sell or transfer a particular item to person B because the item is illegal and ownership was grandfathered into a piece of legislation--is not the same as kicking the door down and taking the item by force from its lawful owner.

Again I apologize to the entire gungeon for unmasking the hysterical falsehoods you all cling to so desperately.

I don't even understand what all the pissing and moaning is about...its not like this bill is going to become law anytime soon.

[Straw Man]

19. You're citing a legal dictionary, not a law.

Not the same thing at all. You didn't cite your source, but it was easy enough to find.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Confiscation%3A+To+expropriate+private+property+for+public+use+without+compensating+the+owner+under+the+authority+of+the+Police+Power+of+the+government.

Fair enough, though, because we're talking about the meaning of the word confiscation. It can and does apply to seizure of assets after the death of the owner:

If the legislative distribution plan fails to provide for distribution because there are no living blood relatives, the state confiscates all the property and it accrues to the benefit of the state. The best way to avoid having the state decide who is to receive your property is to have a valid Will.

--http://www.buildawill.com/ep_2_bfts.php

What we're talking about here is a situation in which the state would seize property despite a valid will and clearly designated heirs. Action is required at the time of death: Because of the transfer ban, the items become "toxic" and must be taken in charge by the state or there will be potential legal consequences. The item passes from private to state ownership without compensation. Again, I have to ask what you would call that action if not "confiscation."

Neither hysterical nor false.

[aikoaiko]

20. Hardly. You just don't like the analogy because it reveals unconvenient truths about your position.

All analogies break down after the similarities -- otherwise they wouldn't be analogies.

[benEzra]

13. What proposal are you talking about? I'm talking about H.R.308, the leading contender.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h308/text

It is ultimately confiscatory, because (unlike the 1994 law) it bars transfer to anyone except the government. All transfer, including intergenerational transfer. That is ultimately confiscatory, because all 40 million people who own them now, or their families, will have to make the choice to either quietly commit a 10-year Federal felony, or volunteer to have them confiscated/destroyed. There are no other choices.

Oh, and if you can't prove that you already lawfully owned those particular magazines prior to the ban's effective date? They're contraband immediately, and you're committing a felony immediately.

[spin]

16. A 10 year federal felony ...

For simply owning a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?

Will they set a murderer free to incarcerate a person caught with an extended magazine?

[petronius]

7. Am I the only one who caught the most interesting and important part of this story?

:shrug:

A clue: it has nothing to do with guns or serial killers... ;)